Hi thanks for your post. Why does an electron radiating energy imply that it would necessarily crash into the nucleus and thereby disprove the model? Specifically, if it is alike to a solar system--as theorized--then that system also is radiated on and so would not necessarily function as assumed.
This idea has far too quickly been dismissed as "false" rather than put to the side as a "maybe-but-we-don't-yet-have-a-full-explanation-for-how-it-would-occur," no? Also, due to its immensely different mass, the rate at which an atom functions would be drastically different than the rate at which a solar system functions.
If you find the time, I humbly suggest you read through my posts on how gravity causes electromagnetism, all distant redshifted galaxies, and many other concepts.
Logic and reason demand that it is the reality of how things function because this path reduces physics drastically while our current path makes it more and more complex (adding expansion of space, dark energy, strings, and so on). Arguably, we have not understood sufficiently to see that it is actually the case, and instead have jumped to conclusions and are no longer even considering the possibilities.
The same occurred with all distant redshifted galaxies. This observation is not necessarily caused by motion, as gravity can also cause redshift, but it has been assumed that motion is the cause and gravity has been completely disregarded simply because the mechanism was not understood as I talk about in my post here: The Big Bang's Big Assumption.
I am not sure to follow (the first part of) your comment.
We actually have a full explanation. This is related to synchrotron radiation, also known as brehmsstrahlung radiation. The electron emits radiation and thus looses energy. It consequently spirals around the nucleus, getting closer and closer (as a smaller speed means less compensation of the electromagnetic force). This is why orbits in Rutherford's model are said to be unstable.
You post describes a framework based on an assumption that seem not to be favored by data (the infinite substructure stuff). There is indeed so far no sign of any substructures for quarks. (maybe should this be discussed elsewhere as this is off topic with respect to my QM post :p ).
Thanks. I guess my point is that the electron losing energy when it emits radiation is also due to it being radiated upon to gain energy, thus a balance is maintained. It's ok just checking :) Thanks for your response!
My pleasure. I will try to visit and comment your posts later to initiative a discussion (I am pretty busy those days, so please be patient :) ).
How would the electron gain energy here? We are not in a collision process where an external source could bring something.